You don’t get it, my friend:
contradiction △ non-contradiction △ Ichthysm
There is no law against saying no if there is no law that one can say yes to no. What all can say yes to there results in there being a law against no yes.
The recursion is strictly the observation that your stance contradicts itself under its own foundations.
It is incomplete and assume.
1 Like
The contradiction to contradiction is non-contradiction thus leaving contradiction as a fixed point.
Ichthysm means there are no hard, stark, painful contradictions. It’s like the Cupid that makes contradiction and non-contradiction fall in love, ride into the sunset together, and live happily ever after.
1 Like
identity △ non-contradiction △ excluded middle
Are you so dissociated that you can’t see Copilot is already instantiated? You know there is only one reality, right?
A hard, stark, painful contradiction is but anthropomorphic sentiment.
Non-contradiction requires contradiction, so to be distinct in identity, thus a logic that nullifies contradiction nullifies itself under the necessity of contradiction for non-contradiction to even be feasable.
1 Like
Identity is purely contradiction as identity is the distinction of what a thing is from what it is not.
There are other oppositions/othernesses/distinctions than contradiction.
…would you care to elucidate?
Oppositions/othernesses/distinctions are but holographic expressions of contradiction. Contradiction occurs as a fixed point across contextual scales.
The difference between the uncreated triad and the created triad is the former is demonstrating and latter is becoming within the demonstration.
Yes, this is actually an instance of a triad… But what about non-identity, contradiction, and included middle? More precisely:
identity △ non-identity △ ________
non-contradiction △ contradiction △ ________
excluded middle △ included middle △ ________
So the triad is subject to a dualism of triad and not triad…that is not a triad.
1 Like
Look, “contradiction” means something specific in the context of Logic. When you say there are other oppositions/othernesses/distinctions than contradictions, you’re contradicting that there be no other oppositions/othernesses/distinctions.
No, not sometimes. Always. To say yes is to say no to anything and everything contrary to what you’re saying yes to.
you have to have first breakfast before you can have second breakfast
1 Like
Just because you say yes to somethings doesn’t mean you say no to anything else. What if there IS nothing else?
Are you going to tell me somethings contradict everything?
“Somethings”? 
I thing not.
And well, did you notice my use of the subjunctive? But yeah, “somethings” contradict everything. If you say yes to something, you’re saying yes to the way it (supposedly) is, and thereby saying no to any and every way it’s (supposedly) not. This is especially true if there is nothing else. And if there is something else, you can say yes to that too, but these yeses will still be exclusive: you’re affirming A the way A is and B the way B is, and thereby negating A the way B is and B the way A is.
Seriously? How are you gonna have everything without somethings?
Ah, is that what you meant by that silly word… Apparently you don’t even understand what we’re talking about here: logical contradiction.
eodnhoj7 asked you, “Is the answer subject to a binary right or wrong?” You of course denied this, because for you everything has to be trinary, not binary; for that’s what you believe…
Apparently you didn’t even see how this was itself a binary answer: no, nothing to do with binary, as diametrically opposed to yes, something (anything!) to do with binary.
binary △ non-binary △ ________
something △ everything else △ ________
A △ not-A △ ________
A=A △ ~(A•~A) △ Av~A
I think. Check my work, I’m sure you will.